My take on Trump (something I really didn’t want to write)

The most powerful democracy in the world, in every imaginable sense, has recently had a presidential election. It is a democracy often praised for its robustness, not least by those living under it and benefitting directly from it. Key amongst its lauded strengths is the system of checks and balances that comes from three independent arms of government and resulting in a self-correcting system. It is a system that isn’t perfect, some would say far from perfect, what with the corroding influence of money, the dumbing influence of the media and the trivialising influence of celebrity culture. Another of its key strengths is the rule of law. Elections are held every four years without fail and no President serves more than two terms (I believe there has been one in extremis exception).

I was stunned, not by Donald Trump’s victory at the polls, but by the meltdown that hit liberal America in its wake. Sure, this man is a gross specimen of all there is to be embarrassed about in the human character, but didn’t he just get elected fair and square by one-person-one-vote secret ballot? Isn’t he as much proof of the robustness of American democracy as the election of Barack Hussein Obama before him? Indeed, witnessing the apoplexy besetting America’s liberal intelligentsia, I couldn’t help recalling the anguished sound and inarticulate fury of the barely-literate right in the wake of a black man’s moving into the White House on 20 January 2009. Liberal America seems to have forgotten that.

They seem also to have forgotten that Donald John Trump did not elect himself to power. Distasteful and dangerous as many of his views might be, those are the views of enough Americans for the robust democratic system to have cleared him for Presidential office. There was no mistake here, not even a hanging chad. American democracy is intact and working exactly as it should. So far, Donald Trump is no threat to it. Should he get out of hand, well, there are those checks and balances we’ve all heard about. Let’s see whether it’s really the guarantee that it’s made out to be. If he manages to avoid impeachment to make it to the four-year mark, he’s going to have to face another election. That’s what the law says.

So I was more than a little alarmed to read Rosa Brooks’ 3 Ways to Get Rid of President Trump Before 2020 in the 30 January 2017 issue of Foreign Policy magazine, in which she calls for the ousting of the US President by military coup. Ever since the frenzy to seek out and murder Salman Rushdie, I have been implacable opposed to the notion “responsible free speech,” which has only been reinforced by the slaughter of the staff at Charlie Hebdo. Rosa Brooks’ piece is a clear case of irresponsible free speech, one that gave me much pause for thought. Ms Brooks’ irresponsible exercise of free speech does not prompt me to call for responsible free speech, but I have a few things to say about it.

Brooks seems unaware of what fire she is playing with. Equally unaware she seems, of the very a large population in the world, and many generations of them, who are all too familiar with military coups d’états, the people who seize power through them, and the near-impossibility of getting rid of them afterwards, not to mention the ‘clean-up’ they feel obliged to carry out while they hold power. One can only hope that Brooks doesn’t live within earshot of a stadium, for her children’s sakes, if not for hers. The bizarreness of her proposition deepens when one keeps in mind that she proposes a coup because she finds the US democratic system’s checks and balances wanting. She explores each of the three checks-and-balances provisions of the democratic system: the next Presidential election; impeachment; and the 25th Amendment to the Constitution. These will not do, she finds. Call in the generals!

Donald Trump may well turn out to be the catastrophe he threatens to be. But let’s just take a look at this. The first point, and one that Brooks might do well to take note of, is that Donald Trump did not seize power in a military coup. This alone shows him to have more respect for democracy than she has. The judicial arm of government (remember those checks and balances?) has already stepped in to block one of his Executive Orders, and although he is considering further legal action, the point is that it is legal action. At this moment, democracy is safer in his hands than it would be in Brooks’.

The judges who blocked the Executive Order banning travel from a number of Muslim countries didn’t do so because Trump is the crazy maniac of many a commentator, but because his Order did not comply with the rules of American democracy. It is worth remembering that to another section of the electorate, Barack Obama had been a crazy maniac, but he, too, complied with the rules of democracy. Many of those voters wanted extra-judicial action against Obama and his family. But then they are right wing, many of them barely literate; that’s what they do; it’s their dinner-table talk.

Of course Trump’s bigotry against Muslims, against anyone, needs to be opposed. But I know Islam, I know its dangerous agenda and I know how its fifth column operates. I am very familiar with the Muslim track record of turning very unpleasant indeed, once they reach a certain proportion of the population they joined. The Muslim Brotherhood is the organisation through which this infiltration takes place. The task of moving against the Muslim Brotherhood does not go away, just because Trump is a bigot against Muslims. Put differently, Trump’s coming to power does not abrogate the Qur’an. It is still there in every Muslim heart, as ISIS so tauntingly boasts. Trump’s bigotry against Muslims risks all critique and exposure of Islam and action against the Muslim Brotherhood being associated with his bigotry. It tends to silence critique of Islam for fear of association with Trump. How long will it be before the increasingly hapless regressive left accuses ex-Muslims, the ultimate critics of Islam, of complicity in anti-Muslim pogroms? Another side effect is to bog down critics of Islam in endless disclaimers of not being against Muslims (this is, in fact, a double problem because Muslims do need to be criticised, as I do in some of my earlier posts).

Donald Trump has taken Office and placed others of similar outlook into all the key positions of power, another complaint of the liberal intelligentsia. But that’s what all presidents do. Note that none of those he put in power are his children or his brothers-in-law. In most of the world, for example, in the Muslim world or where coups are perennial, that standard remains a fantasy. He has moved against people he perceives to pose a threat to the security of the United States. That is part of the job of the President. Arguably, his main appeal to the electorate lay in his contention that his predecessor had been negligent in this aspect of his duties.

But here’s the rub. When considering impeachment against the President, Brooks enthuses, “the good news is that Congress doesn’t need evidence of actual treason or murder to move forward with an impeachment,” exactly what Trump maintains when he moves against all Muslims. I would grant that Ms Brooks is “not actually insane,” despite her sharing this excitement for extra-evidential coercion with Mr Trump.

Of course Americans are right to protest what they perceive as the excesses of their government, whether holding placards or writing articles in magazines. It is something the intelligentsia have both the skills and the time for. One wonders what scenes will have unfolded on the streets and in the airports of America, had those who were distressed by the previous elected President’s policies and actions had the skills and the time to vent their spleens likewise. We’ll, they have neither the skills nor the time, and what we saw was white rage, the only avenue open to the inarticulate poor. Until Bernie Sanders came along, that is.

The Bernie Sanders campaign reminded us that the working class is not inherently socially backward, and also that they’d been abandoned. The way I see it is, firstly, why would the party of finance capital want to open that particular can of worms? Secondly, why would the liberal intelligentsia, especially its regressive and more vociferous elements, want to rock their very comfortable multiculturalism and diversity boat? The key lesson that I take from the Sanders campaign is that the answer lies not in taking over the Democratic Party, as some propose, but in rendering it irrelevant. That came very close to actually happening, until the diversity button got pressed and all energy had to be diverted to putting a woman in power, even if she was the crooked mouthpiece of finance capital.

And now that same identity politics with its multicultural mind-set, having indirectly put Trump in power, instead of taking a good hard look at itself, doubles down to entrench multiculturalism still further. It is the whine of the regressive liberal, all sound and fury, signifying petulance.


  1. No longer a muslim says

    Are you aware of Linda Sarsour’s leadership role in the anti-Trump “Women’s March”?

    Imagine I believed these things: A conservative religious law is “only misunderstood,” so we shouldn’t worry about the millions living under it in abject oppression due to their homosexuality, lack of faith, and sex because our “loans and credits will become interest free”; we needn’t focus on women in Saudi Arabia not being allowed to drive under archaic male guardianships laws where males control their every action because the women there receive 10 weeks paid maternity leave; women being represented in the parliament of a country is somehow a strike against blatantly evident systemic oppression against the female sex; and the forced covering of women’s bodies is a sign of modesty and religious adherence as opposed to a misogynistic attitude about female autonomy.

    If I was a public figure, by all lenses of the current progressive movement, I’d be cast aside as a bigoted, hateful, conservative apologist and shamed non-stop for my views on social media and in the press — without any room for “interpretations” or anyone coming to my defense.

    Unless I put on a hijab, it seems.

    Enter the glorification of Linda Sarsour, current media darling who’s had everyone from celebrities to magazines to news publications support and write glowing reviews and profiles of her.

    Sarsour is a supporter of the muslim theocracy in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and yet she’s a media darling of the American liberal left, defended by countless celebrities and left-wing politicians, while her critics are demonized as racist:

    We live in strange times when a conservative, religious apologist who has, at times, defended Saudi Arabia and promotes laws that would subjugate women and LGBTQ citizens around the globe is celebrated without second thought in the mainstream as some great civil rights leader or fighter for women’s rights, and her legitimate critics are cast as Islamophobes, far-right bigots, and racists for voicing their concerns.

    This is, quite frankly, disgusting. Sarsour is an apologist for Saudi Afrabia, a regime based on muslim barbarity against women, LGBTQ, non-believers and “westernized” muslims (read: not muslm enough for the religious police’s liking). The fact that she has had a leadership role in a march for women’s right is appalling, but even more appalling is that after her shilling for Saudi Arabia was exposed the American liberal left went on the defend her, to smear all of her critics (including leftist, secular people of middle eastern origin) as far-right racist, and to ignore the evidence of her disgraceful support for a muslim theocracy.

    I fear that the American left is so obsessed with Donald Trump (who admittedly is an unsavory character who despises checks and balances and engages in corruption and nepotism) that they’re unwilling to question anyone who claims to be anti-Trump. This is absurd. The enemy of my enemy isn’t necessarily my friend, and quite frankly between Trump’s corruption and backdoor dealings and Sarsour’s support for a muslim theocracy Trump is the lesser evil.

    It’s insane that an organization which fight for women’s rights allows a supporter for a country which treats women like cattle to be part of its leadership, and accuses anyone who points this out of being a racist. If Sarsour had been a Russian woman praising Putin’s regime, which while admittedly bigoted and reactionary isn’t even as remotely as bad as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, she would have been rightly criticized and booted off her leadership role. But since she’s a muslim praising other muslims the left sees her as merely an innocent victim of Trump-inspired racism and “Islamophobia”.

    • secondtofirstworld says

      I have a problem with your last 2 paragraphs. Regarding the penultimate one, it’s a bit of an extraordinary claim to say Trump is a lesser evil, when a) he was largely voted in by Evangelicals among those who voted for him and b) he has plans flying around repealing the Johnson Amendment. If the latter came through, it would mean a huge step closer to have the separation of church and state dismantled, and pastors, preachers and televangelists openly endorsing political candidates, fund their campaign, and practically order believers to vote for them. Unlike the times before the 1970s, ever since the religious right embraced politics, they have openly stated separation is but a one way wall, they want the state religion enjoying exclusive protection be Christianity, and the official language be English on a federal level. This is not even mentioning, that the president can build an executive order presidency if they’re based on existing laws, nothing better, than have a few people who push buttons on command.

      As for the last paragraph… oh, boy. I’d really need to brush up on my knowledge regarding unsolved homicides, forced disappearances, and legal subjugation of human rights in Saudi Arabia. While I’d never call the country a champion of human rights, it’s all kinds of terrible, but to call Russia less bad is just having a bad day in a relationship with facts. The same goes for the claim of a Russian woman being ousted, it’s not the Cold War anymore, not the first one at least. The Kremlin has a casual relationship with historical facts, human rights, and free enterprise. Whereas Rushdie is alive and well, Russian whistle blowers bite the dust wherever they live, and several of the techniques in torture Middle Eastern countries use came from the KGB. Saudi Arabia is a power player within the OPEC and in the Middle East, Russia on the other hand is a power player there, and Europe, the UK, North America, South America and the Far East. Who gets to be a humanitarian depends on their say so. They don’t shy away from war crimes and from belittling their own allies. Lastly, they too treat women like second class citizens, and enjoy the support of a large block of women who’re loyal to the government in subjugating them.

    • says

      An out-and-out female Shari’a shock trooper leading a woman’s rights march will go down as one of the great embarrassments of history. It wasn’t even that they were unaware of her activities or her views. That Sarsour could say to a woman, “If you want to come to the march you are coming with the understanding that you respect a woman’s right to choose,” did not strike them as a glaring contradiction. That the woman so put down was not pro-life apparently disqualified her from womanhood. Depriving women of their womanhood is nothing new to Sarsour (she’s a Shari’a apologist, for crying out loud!). Here she is long before the days of Trump: Brigitte Gabriel= Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She’s asking 4 an a$$ whippin’. I wish I could take their vaginas away – they don’t deserve to be women What this woman proposes here is worse than female genital mutilation. The grossness of her remark, and her utter inhumanity, stands out all the more sharply given that one of her fantasy victims is herself a victim of FGM. And yet they line up behind her in droves, and proudly pose with her to be recorded for all posterity. This is what it’s come too.

      Someone should write a story about those who pulled the Trojan horse in through the gates.

      • secondtofirstworld says

        You do realize, that Ali has her own controversies, right? Sure, supporting the murder of Rushdie was a teenage mistake, but supporting the holocaust denial conference organized by Ahmedinijad wasn’t, just like living together with Wilders (not sexually or romantically, but still). Her own political party admitted not treating her as a loss due to her polarizing personality, and of course, lying on the asylum application form.

        Talking about a Trojan horse now is like throwing stones in a glass house. Neither of them is entirely evil, both enjoy a large following, and act as tokens on their respective side. Actually, the name calling of fake feminist is strong too, since the lawsuit brought on by Gretchen Carlson wasn’t that too long ago, and yet as the hosts have no qualm inviting Sarsour if it’s about women, and moderate Islams, Fox News has no qualm inviting Ali to talk about Islam, and in exchange to reinforce already held views, they look past the fact, or “forgive” that she’s black and not a natural born American. Being interviewed by a platinum blond with blue eyes fresh out of the Hugh Enix Factory. It’s more tokenism, than a Trojan horse.

  2. No longer a muslim says

    One small nitpick to your otherwise excellent article:

    Elections are held every four years without fail and no President serves more than two terms (I believe there has been one in extremis exception).

    There was no exception. The term limit was introduced under president Truman with the Twenty-Second amendment in 1951. Before 1951 there was no limit on how many terms a president could serve, and indeed Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected four times (although he didn’t serve for four terms, he died in 1945, one year after having been elected for the fourth time).

    No other president ever serve more than two terms, though, even when it was legal for them to do so. It was an unwritten rule due to Washington’s example (he served two terms than retired from politics). Roosevelt run for a third term in 1940, when the United States were still neutral in World War Two but the threat of war was looming, and for a fourth term in 1944, when the United States were at war.

    • says

      Thank you very much for this. I’ll leave the error in the OP, though, so readers can know what you’re correcting. I hope you don’t mind.

  3. sonofrojblake says

    the meltdown that hit liberal America in its wake

    Had Clinton won, and had the right been even half as hysterical, can you even imagine the opprobrium that would have been heaped upon them by the left?

    didn’t he just get elected fair and square by one-person-one-vote secret ballot

    According to really rather a lot on the left, the answer to that question is “no”, given the disconnect between the electoral college result (also known as “the result”) and the popular vote.

    Brooks seems unaware of what fire she is playing with

    I think you’re letting her off the hook. I think she knows exactly what she’s saying, and to whom.

    To me, it’s a perfect demonstration that the left in the US is not merely weak – it does not exist. “The left” as the US defines it would, in any civilised country, be regarded as the right. Clinton herself espoused policies in her campaign that were to the right of the current UK government – and we’ve got a right wing government, by European standards. The choice in US politics is not between the left and the right, it’s between the right and the FAR right, and they just picked the far right. It often baffles me why anyone who considers themself to be of the left would even visit, much less live there.

    • anat says

      Had Clinton won, and had the right been even half as hysterical, can you even imagine the opprobrium that would have been heaped upon them by the left?

      Do you remember what Tea Party demonstrations were like? Can you imagine the hysteria after losing yet again to another not-a-white-male person?

  4. anat says

    One wonders what scenes will have unfolded on the streets and in the airports of America, had those who were distressed by the previous elected President’s policies and actions had the skills and the time to vent their spleens likewise.

    It seems you are unaware of the activities of the Tea Party during the Obama years? Traveling through the countryside was pretty disturbing with all the ‘Obama is a secret Muslim/Communist/Hitler’ imagery.

  5. says

    If Hillary Clinton had placed a muslim ban, there would be no protests. If Hillary Clinton had tried to coerce Mexico into acting against it’s own self interests (as she’s successfully done before), no one would bother mentioning it. If Hillary Clinton had consistently threatened war to other countries, well… She did, and literally none of her voters gave a flying fuck.

    The media just threatened that they would no longer be friends of the sitting government, y’know, the way it should have always been, because of Trump. The left apparently just discovered their conscience about torture, surveillance, and other exaggerated executive powers, after letting Obama get away with it for 8 straight years.

    His presidency is shaping up to be a net positive, not because he’s anywhere near decent, but because the public can finally react to the real ugliness of american politics. Everyone else hid their monstrosity behind a veil of respectability, Trump wears it on his sleeve.

    @1 No longer a muslim

    I fear that the American left is so obsessed with Donald Trump […] that they’re unwilling to question anyone who claims to be anti-Trump.

    It’s already happening. The american media is praising Enrique Peña Nieto for standing up to Trump. That asshole was connected to at least one case of brutal repression and human rights abuses (google: San Salvador Atenco) before even being president, and hasn’t improved at all since then.

    Trump has been marketed as the second coming of Hitler so much that literally anyone who falls short of that is deemed acceptable by these shitheads. Just that idiot Rosa Brooks, that Anjuli mentioned above, seems to think that a military coup (and the militaristic state that would obviously follow) is better.

    I just remember the sheer amount of dipshits crying and screaming at Putin’s not-really-hacking of the US elections, while simultaneously supporting a politician who outright presided a phony election in Honduras, successfully overthrew the Libyan government, and tried to do likewise in Syria, among a shitload of other things that are way worse than releasing someone’s e-mails and letting the people decide for themselves what to do with that information (and not even that has been proven to be Russia’s doing).

    These assholes don’t know dick about the world, they wouldn’t listen to the warnings in the primary, and will refuse to learn from their mistakes in order to take power away from Trump. I’m actually surprised none of them have come to Anjuli’s comment section to accuse her of being racist, sexist, islamophobic blah blah blah… as I’ve mentioned before, they probably can’t wrap their heads around that PC-pretzel.

  6. tkreacher says

    but didn’t he just get elected fair and square by one-person-one-vote secret ballot?

    Why no, no he didn’t. He lost the one-person-one-vote secret ballot by millions and millions of votes.

    • says

      Thank you for pointing that out. Others have done so, too (mostly in comments that I’ve rejected for their abuse). I should’ve chosen my words more carefully. I am aware that Clinton had gained more votes (about 2 million, I think) and of the issues with the Electoral College. What I meant was by the rules of the game. Those rules are not perfect (far from perfect, say some), but they’re the same rules by which other Presidents were elected. Others, too, may have lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College. The anti-Trump demographic is far more able to make their feelings about that particular injustice known, than others who may have been hard done by by it in the past. And this time, it happened to work against them. Suddenly there’s no democracy at all. People who say this have no idea what non-democracy looks like. One profoundly ignorant person even called for a military coup! Back to your point, my point was that the rules of the democratic system applies to all elections.

      I did qualify my exploration by acknowledging the roles of money (one reason I was so disappointed that liberals allowed Bernie to get dumped), the media and celebrity culture in causing the system as a whole to be less than even its imperfect baseline. The whole recount saga in the G W Bush election, and the perennial attempts at manipulating boundaries or disenfranchising black voters, raised and continue to raise more profound electoral justice questions.

      The main point I was driving at (as far as your feedback is concerned) is that all its imperfections notwithstanding, there are fixed-term elections and the President submits to those elections. Power changes hands peacefully according to a set of rules that everyone understands and accepts. That is what people who’ve never known democracy and never known freedom value particularly highly. The elections aren’t cancelled on a whim. The President doesn’t declare himself President-for-Life. The opposition party isn’t in jail. Teachers are not dragged out of classrooms because they’re suspected of not loving the President enough, etc., etc. Whether Trump is the kind of individual who will break that mould remains to be seen. There is no question that Trump is a dangerous man. But he has seen what gave Bernie the power and he has learnt his lesson. The tragedy is that too many who were in a position to learn that lesson before Trump, had failed to do so. I’m not at all confident that we’re looking at only a four-year Trump presidency. But right now I get the impression that people from outside America are putting more faith in those checks and balances that those who grew up under it.

    • says


      Strictly speaking, the real winner of the popular vote was “none of the above”. You may say that that’s irrelevant since the system doesn’t allow “no one” as winer but, in those terms, the same system also allows for a victory in the Electoral College in spite of a popular vote loss.

      Trump was elected by the exact same system that got you Obama. That the electoral college somehow took them by surprise actually speaks very badly of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. It’s an institution as old as the very country they’re trying to rule, how could they not see it coming?

      The president just before Obama also won the election without the popular vote, this is not a new outcome, and it’s also not old enough to be that easily forgotten. You basically just had this thing happen to you, changed nothing, and couldn’t foresee it happening again?

  7. Phillip C says

    As for Trump, I can’t resist the temptation to paraphrase (Butcher?) C.S. Lewis’ famous statement.

    At some point, even Orange Donald’s greed may be satiated, his narcissism and his vanity temporarily suspended, as, for now, satisfied. But if the choice was made to empower those who are certain that they know best, those who torment us and remove our rights for our own good. They would never sleep, our misery would never end, because nothing would ever be enough for them because they act with the approval of their own conscience.

  8. kremer says

    I’d like to toss out a brief comment on one issue only; I am not against the act of people trying to stop politicians in their tracks when I disagree with what they are trying to do – had Obama been trying to do everything Trump is looking to do now, I would have been happy to see Republicans do their best to shut the guy down.

  9. Cartimandua says

    Can I point out that Rosa goes from exploring standard mechanisms for the removal of a President to examining a completely hypothetical scenario.

    What would happen if Trump’s ….. umm ….. unorthodox approach translated into (say) unilateral nuclear war. Then what ? The answer to the rhetorical question is hopefully – “given those stakes, saner people with authority would intervene”.

    This was not a call for an immediate revolt. It was not even a call for a pre-emptive strike down the track. It was a classic counter-factual that may all all too soon become operational fact.

    • says

      Just my ignorance here, but can the President of the Unites States by himself start a nuclear war? I’m not trying to play down that possibility. I’m just interested in the actual procedure for pressing said button. Let’s say he’s in a bit of a crap mood, can he actually make his way to wherever that button is and then, without anyone else’s involvement, push it?

      Yes, it was hypothetical, but it was also clear that she has no idea what a military coup means.

      • secondtofirstworld says

        No, he can’t, international law still defines an aggressive (as in, non-provoked) act of war as a Class A war crime, the only legal body that can declare war is Congress. This is why the Bush administration went on a press tour to convince everyone Saddam is linked to 9/11 and thereby Iraq was the aggressor first.

        The procedure is semi-public, it takes 8 minutes in total, and he’s at the end of the chain, not at the top. This was put in place to ensure to human or technical error can lead to such a war, hence why the red phone still exists. However… John Oliver did a good bit on the subject a few months back, and the state of affairs is abysmal, with at one point a totally non-cleared pizza delivery guy pointing out, that the door supposed to guard the missiles was ajar. The computers are from the ’70s, the bored operators are either drunk or coked up, when they are not leaking state secrets.

        It’s also good, that it’s not an automated process, as just last week, he said, everyone should have nukes, then noone. The fact of the matter is, and I can’t believe I’m saying this, it took Mike Pence to calm the NATO-allies down, that no, the “I make up a terrorist attack in Sweden” guy won’t abandon his allies, and it took Tillerson to explain in an exasperated fashion, that they won’t deport all illegals to Mexico regardless of place of origin. Nor will they implement the military, which would have been funny in a sad way, since conservatives have bitched about a NATO-exercise being just a guise for taking away their guns, but they would be totally okay with it, if it’s about brown people.

        • says

          Thanks. So, essentially, quite a few variables need to be lined up before he can do that. So, again (and this is a straightforward interest question) is the “nuclear weapons + Trump = war” hypothesis misplaced? Of course it’s an interesting question in and of itself, but there’s a reason it’s coming up now.

          • secondtofirstworld says

            Fortunately there are, otherwise we would be toast by now. Is it misplaced? Hard to say. Based on the 6 weeks he’s in office, I compared his confidence to that of Clinton and his ignorance to that of Nixon.

            The latter guy is of interest for me now, as even he did some few good things (like taking health and environment seriously), among them starting the détente with Brezhnev. In retrospect many conclude, that 1962 and 1983 were the closest when we almost died, but thankfully under Nixon he had Kissinger to dissuade him from taking the most aggressive approach with the Russians. There is still a looming threat today, since Russia has restarted commissioning missile trains (in possible violation of a previous treaty), but I wouldn’t go as far as validating the fears of ignorant voters by condoning forceful removal. Although his administration isn’t the most humane by far, key members have visions they want to realize, which would be hard from a bunker.

            We talk about pushing the button, but it’s actually a chain where others have to approve to account for the improbability the president is taken hostage (but if he really can’t operate light switches, not so improbable) and I massively doubt Pence or other more levelheaded people would just go with it. If it were up to Trump, we would have nuclear winter, but especially thanks to Nixon it’s not entirely his call.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *